Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 118 posts

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#101

Post by win2k »

petepete wrote: post #2

> The ban will therefore include platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. > "We do not intend for messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal to be included in the social media ban." YouTube is a bit of a surprise here, but I guess with Shorts they put themselves in the same category as Tiktok, etc.

I wonder if a ban on YouTube means a ban on kids watching YouTube or just having an account.

If it's the former, then many schools use YouTube for educational purposes and set their kids homework that involves watching it. My old school sent us YouTube videos to watch on WW2 during the lockdown.

If it's the latter, what happens when YouTube flags your IP as suspicious and demands you "sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#102

Post by win2k »

egorfine wrote: post #67

As a parent of four, I will do everything in my power to keep my kids in all social networks they want to, including setting up VPNs for them, etc.

I think this is an unhealthy and unhelpful attitude. While I oppose the government banning it, I still believe children should be kept off of social media until they are mature enough, which can vary from child to child. There are plenty of dangers of social media: addiction, AI-generated propaganda, and bullying being a few.

It's your kids though so it's your decision. Just giving my take.

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#103

Post by win2k »

ben_w wrote: post #68
sashank_1509 wrote: post #5

Can this be realistically enforced without parents help?

From the polling I've seen, a majority (90%!) of parents are amongst those who called for this ban: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/britain-expec... This means much more support for the ban by parents than by non-parents, as the full population average is about 75% support.

I wish those parents would just setup controls on their kids' smartphones and block social media apps for them instead of forcing everyone else to give their ID.

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#104

Post by basisword »

designerarvid wrote: post #26
basisword wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have they said you’ll need to provide ID? My guess would be they do it through other mechanisms like age estimation. I know X is already doing this for posts labelled mature. If they do estimation through account age most people are probably already basically verified on lots of the main social media services.

I don't know, hence the question.

Confirmed these are all options before id may be necessary:

- Account age more than 16 years

- Age estimation

- Credit card

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#105

Post by ben_w »

win2k wrote: post #103
ben_w wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the polling I've seen, a majority (90%!) of parents are amongst those who called for this ban: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/britain-expec... This means much more support for the ban by parents than by non-parents, as the full population average is about 75% support.

I wish those parents would just setup controls on their kids' smartphones and block social media apps for them instead of forcing everyone else to give their ID.

When I was a kid, a common refrain was adults couldn't figure out how to stop VCRs flashing 12:00.

While the details changed, this rhymes with more recent research: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/skills-matter_1f029d8f-...

Would be nice if everyone was competent at everything, but we have to specialise, and that means a lot of people simply don't have time to re-learn how to do that every time Apple, Google, and Microsoft change their UIs. Same deal as https://xkcd.com/2501/

Me, I had to turn on parental controls… to stop my parents from accidentally removing apps from the dock.

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#106

Post by SiempreViernes »

piker wrote: post #36
SiempreViernes wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's about the explicitly stated goal of getting kids to stop being harmed by the products of some of the largest advertising agencies on the planet that have resisted more subtle regulation for decades.

Yes, no doubt there is an obvious first-order reason for this. It's the second order effects that I think folks are rightly worried about, but it's easy to steel man.

That is not an accurate description of the idea expressed in the post I replied to, you might want to start a separate thread to discuss potential second order effects.

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#107

Post by snehk »

dagss wrote: post #40
designerarvid wrote: post #10

Honest question: Is this about anything else than forcing all citizens to ID themselves to the government before using digital services?

As a Norwegian teen parent: Seeing all the issues cropping up which is /enabled/ (not saying caused) by social media, you don't need to look for ulterior motives. I believe these bans are honest attempts to fix real problems. Examples I know about include 12-year-olds selling nudes, teen experimentation with alcohol being replaced with cocaine because cocaine is so easily available (the issue is the scale and how wid…

I wonder why Poland doesn't have these problems even though everyone uses social media including teens.

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#108

Post by egorfine »

suprfnk wrote: post #99
egorfine wrote: post #67

As a parent of four, I will do everything in my power to keep my kids in all social networks they want to, including setting up VPNs for them, etc.

Interesting; do you think it’s a net positive for them?

It absolutely is.

I've got four kids, ranging from 33 to 12. All connected since earliest ages, no restrictions.

All the adult ones grew up good people with successful careers. The youngest kid is growing incredibly smart, he's on track to finish school at least two years earlier - with zero pressure from parents, I swear. (If anything this would be a nuisance, because he's too young for university.)

So yeah. I will keep him connected as well.

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#109

Post by egorfine »

win2k wrote: post #102
egorfine wrote: post #67

As a parent of four, I will do everything in my power to keep my kids in all social networks they want to, including setting up VPNs for them, etc.

I think this is an unhealthy and unhelpful attitude. While I oppose the government banning it, I still believe children should be kept off of social media until they are mature enough, which can vary from child to child. There are plenty of dangers of social media: addiction, AI-generated propaganda, and bullying being a few. It's your kids though so it's your decision. Just giving my take.

See my response to the adjacent comment:)

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#110

Post by spwa4 »

Gigachad wrote: post #65
piker wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that will bring a lot of relief to the concerned side as it implies you are being fingerprinted by all the websites that are subject to this verification rule.

Of course, the social media sites were already fingerprinting you and guessing your age, gender, interests, etc for advertising.

So that's considered acceptable? Seriously? I mean the government can't seriously argue that Facebook or Twitter aren't going to be deceptive about this?
Post reply on HN